United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
WILLIAM E. DUFFIN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Cedrik Tujibikila, who is representing himself, filed a
complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that the
defendants violated his civil rights. This matter comes
before the court on Tujibikila's motion for leave to
proceed without prepayment of the filing fee and for
screening of the complaint. (ECF Nos. 1 and 2.)
to Proceed without Prepayment of the Filing Fee
Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) applies to
this action because Tujibikila was incarcerated when he filed
this complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The law allows an
inmate to proceed with his or her lawsuit in federal court
without prepaying the $350 filing fee. Id. The
inmate must comply with certain requirements, one of which is
to pay an initial partial filing fee. Id.
April 2, 2019, the court assessed an initial partial filing
fee of $3.34. (ECF No. 13.) Tujibikila paid that amount on
May 13, 2019. Accordingly, the court will grant
Tujibikila's motion to proceed without prepayment of the
filing fee. He must pay the remainder of the filing fee over
time in the manner explained at the end of this order.
of the Complaint
court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners
seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or
employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
To state a cognizable claim under the federal notice pleading
system, a plaintiff is required to provide a “short and
plain statement of the claim showing that [he] is entitled to
relief[.]” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). To state a claim, a
complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as
true, “that is plausible on its face.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
(2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility when the
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (citing
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a
plaintiff must allege that: 1) he was deprived of a right
secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States; and
2) the deprivation was visited upon him by a person or
persons acting under color of state law. Buchanan-Moore
v. County of Milwaukee, 570 F.3d 824, 827 (7th Cir.
2009) (citing Kramer v. Village of North Fond du
Lac, 384 F.3d 856, 861 (7th Cir. 2004)); see also
Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640 (1980). The Court is
obliged to give a plaintiff's pro se
allegations, “however inartfully pleaded, ” a
liberal construction. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551
U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429
U.S. 97, 106 (1976)).
states that defendants “Amy RN, ” “Angela
Nurse, ” and “Christin Nurse” of the
Kenosha County Detention Center were deliberately indifferent
to his serious medical needs on January 4, January 22, and
January 27, 2019. (ECF No. 1 at 2.) The only specific
information he alleges regarding the defendants'
deliberate indifference is that it was “because of
medical malpractice.” (Id.) He does not
provide any facts regarding his medical needs or any details
regarding the actions that the defendants allegedly did or
did not take.
claims that the defendants violated his Eighth Amendment
rights when they were deliberately indifferent to his medical
needs. However, he does not provide any facts supporting his
claims. Without any facts, the court cannot determine whether
Tujibikila states a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Thus, Tujibikila cannot proceed on his complaint.
he may file an amended complaint that provides facts and
details to support his claim that the defendants were
deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. In his
amended complaint, Tujibikila should provide the court with
enough facts to answer the following questions: 1) who
specifically violated his constitutional rights?; 2) how did
each person violate his rights?; 3) where did each person
violate his rights?; and, 4) when did each person violate his
rights? Specifically, for each incident, Tujibikila should
provide details about his medical needs on that date and
explain how the defendants were deliberately indifferent to
them. If Tujibikila does not know the name of a particular
defendant who allegedly violated his rights, he may identify
him or her as “John Doe” or “Jane
Doe.” If the court determines that the amended
complaint states a viable claim and may proceed, Tujibikila
will have an opportunity to conduct limited discovery to
determine the names of any John or Jane Doe defendants.
court will enclose a copy of the complaint form and
instructions. Tujibikila should write the word
“AMENDED” in front of the “COMPLAINT”
at the top of the first page and then put the case number for
this case-19-cv-193-in the field for “Case
Number.” He must list all of the defendants that he
intends to sue in the caption of the complaint. He must use
the spaces on pages two and three to allege the key facts
that give rise to the claims he wishes to bring, and to
describe what each defendant named in the caption of the
complaint committed the violations that relate to each claim.
If the space is not enough, he may use up to five additional
sheets of paper (putting page numbers on each additional
page). The amended complaint takes the place of the prior
complaint and must be ...